Bush won in 2004 because people have been trained like monkeys to jump at whatever hot-button issue they are fed. It's as much the Democrats fault as it is the Republicans (both of which embraced such trivial debates), as it is the American people for not even trying to give a shit about important matters.
Bush won in 2004 because the majority of the people who voted thought he would be a better president than Kerry.
(**yes, I know about the electoral college, but it USUALLY works out according to the majority, as it did in 2004)
Fact: Valerie Plame was a CIA agent working with an unofficial, undisclosed cover. A secret agent, if you will. Fact: Valerie Plame's identity and her "secret agent" status was leaked to several members of the media, who publshed this information. Fact: Outting an undercover CIA agent is a federal crime - a breach of national security because it can seriously hamper the CIA's ability to operate abroad. This crime did, indisputably, take place. The reporters's didn't all suddenly get this information through divine revelation - it was given to them. This is the reason the special prosecutor investigation was initiated in the first place - to find out who leaked Plame's identity to the media.
The semantic squabling going on is over two definitions of "undercover". Plame did have an "unofficial cover," as do many in the CIA who aren't "secret agents" in the sense that one would normally thing of that term. Plame and CIA officials confirmed this to congress. That's one definition. The federal law which you mention uses a much different definition, which requires using the cover in operations abroad. By this definition she was NOT undercover, as several officials and experts also testified to congress. So the crime that you said indisputably took place, indisputably did not take place. Aside from her not qualifying for the definition given in the law, there are other requirements that were also not met.
All evidence collected thus far strongly points to the leak coming from inside the White House. Presumptive motive: to discredit Plame's husband, Wilson, who was publicly discrediting the false intelligence the Administration was using to push for the war in Iraq.
Prosecutor Fitzgerald was unable to pull together enough evidence to definitively charge any one person with revealing Plame's identity. This does not constitute the absence of a crime. The fact that her cover was blown to the media is the crime. The possibility that her career was destroyed as political retribution against her husband makes it a rather petty crime.
All evidence? By open admission, the "crime" was committed by Armitage. The "presumptive motive" you speak of Democratic spin that is amazingly still repeated despite the truth being open record. The truth is that the information was used by Armitage to bolster Wilson's case against the justification for the war, just as Wilson had used it for the same purpose. These, and all other facts relating to the case were well known to the prosecutor very early on in the investigation.
The blue team is right. Virtually everybody, if asked whether disclosing a CIA operative's name as political retribution against her husband for not supporting an administration's war, would say of course it is serious. "She didn't get hurt" and "he didn't write the stories" are excuses and nothing more.
For the record, I don't consider myself part of ANY team; I find myself on the Republican side on some issues and the Democrats' on others. And more importantly, I would absolutely feel the same if the same scenario happened with Democrats in power and the Republicans being the ones pushing it as serious. It is.
If you're REALLY not on any team, you might be interested to know that her name was dropped by Armitage in an effort to BOLSTER Wilson's case against the justification of the war.
You love him? Strong words, but good on you for saying them. Can you explain why the president of a country should disregard the very public he is supposed to be representing and leading?
I don't think he should disregard them at all. It's his job to serve them. That means doing what is in the public's best interest at all times. And that necessarily means sometimes doing things that are contrary to public opinion. (And at other times it inevitably means doing things opposed to especially loud minority opinions.) The fact that the Public Good does not always line up with the Public Opinion is one of the central motivating themes in the drafting of our Constitution, and why they came up with such a complex system instead of a simple direct democracy.
I know I'm going to piss a lot of people off here, but oh well. While I certainly do not think Bush is the best president that we've ever had, he's hardly the worst. Bush has at least accomplished something in the time that he's been in office that even his father couldn't accomplish. Yes, the Iraq war is quite ugly, but I can't help but wonder what might have happened if we had left Sadam in power. For years he thumbed his nose at the US, broke every treaty he entered in to, killed his own people, and even though it's popular to state there were no WMDs that's not entirely true. What we were looking for specifically being nuclear WMDs weren't there, but there were still chemical (sarin) WMDs that he should not have had. Every president before him tried diplomacy, and every president before him was summarily ignored. While it's not our job to be the world police I think it would be far more regrettable in the long run to stand by and do nothing. I think the war could have been better executed, but to some extent we have been hindered by the lack of support from the international community.
I agree on all counts. I think Bush's legacy will be 1) Iraq, which will (following the model of the South after the Civil War) take 100 years to look like an unqualified success, and 2) putting the U.S. country back on the path towards democracy by nominating S.C. Justices who limit themselves to their Constitutional role
Attila generally did what he thought best, regardless of how the local people were going to receive it, which was why the Huns loved him.
Genghis Khan generally did what he thought best, regardless of how the local people were going to receive it, which was why the Mongols loved him.
Stalin generally did what he thought best, regardless of how the people were going to receive it, which was why the Communist Party of the Soviet Union loved him.
The Mongols loved Genghis Khan for uniting the tribes, elevating the people, and ending the infighting among them. Much of the rest of Asia loved him for providing one of the most extensive centers of cultural and intellectual exchange in history.
I'm sure the Huns appreciated Attila's success in war, but I don't think anyone loved Stalin.
And hopefully no one loves the mini-Hitlers who go around modding conservative posts "flamebait".
"The public" being most of the rest of the human race. So when this little piece of shit starts a war by lying to the electorate and kills ~300,000 civilians, shreds the constitution, and presides over the most breathtakingly incompetent and corrupt administration in recent history, he's just doing what he thinks is right? And that makes it OK, and you love him? And the fact that this little shithead didn't even know the difference between Shia and Sunni until this year doesn't bother you? Incredible.
Except that he didn't do any of those things. The most outlandish claim is the one regarding the Constitution, as this is the first president in recent history who truely respects it.
Libby was fairly sentenced in accordance with the sentencing guidelines that everyone else has to live by -- everyone, that is, who doesn't get special treatment from the White House. But also note the obvious conflict of interest here -- the obstruction of justice in question is quite likely protecting that self-same White House!
As for the fine, that's nothing Scooter Libby's defense fund won't easily take care of. And he'll likely have no trouble getting work because of those self-same contributors to his defense fund. As for the felony conviction, we'll see--he could still get pardoned eventually!
So I don't see anything fair about this, especially coming from a President who has used these same powers so little up until now, and still finds the time to rail against "activist judges". Well now you know what an "activist President" looks like.
First, thanks for reminding me to contribute to the defense fund.
Second, presidents are SUPPOSED to be activist. That's the point. Legislators too. It's called republicanism. Also known as democracy. They derive their power from the people who elect them according to the constitution. That same constitution gives no political power to Judges, but requires that they simply settle cases according to the written law and the testified facts. When Judges usurp political power from the elected branches, they usurp it from the people. Which, for example, is why we needed a war to resolve the slavery issue, because the S.C. took it upon itself to decide it for the people, leaving the people no peaceful or democratic recourse for change. It's the same reason we'll need a war for the people to express their will on the abortion issue unless the S.C. reliquishes that to the rightful lawmakers as well.
"You can't tell me that Libby deserved to go to jail for "obstructing" an investigation into whether someone committed a crime "
Yes! Heaven forbid we hold federal officials accountable to the faithful pursuit of justice and to uphold the Constitution and rule of law to which they have sworn an oath!
You know, it's almost worth sending decent people to prison seeing how it makes liberals suddenly believe in the Constitution, Justice, and the Rule of Law. Too bad the phenomenon doesn't seem to have any effect on the S.C. Justices.
"Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation. I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."--President Bush.
If Bush is citing the probation office's advice, what was that advice? How long was the lesser sentence? Zero, no jail time at all? If not, then why did Bush let Libby off scot free? What is the jail term Bush thinks is appropriate for perjury and objstruction of justice, and why was Libby not required to serve that term?
The punishment he thought was appropriate was the fine plus the 2 years probation. That's the punishment he left intact, and it sounds like the punishment that was recommended by probation office.
And why does Bush say "I respect the jury's verdict," when he patently does not respect the jury's verdict? What could possibly constitute more disrespect than setting the verdict aside?
He did not set the vertict aside, or alter it in any way. Only the sentence was changed. The jury has no part in determining the sentence, only the vertict.
Outing an active agent is an act of treason which, if I recall correctly, is still punishable by death in the US. Whether Libby, Rove, or Cheney did it doesn't (and shouldn't) matter.
I agree, and it should be only the first of several counts of Treason against Joe Wilson. I volunteer to be on the firing squad.
Of course, this was clearly a scummy "Just cover for me and I'll make sure that you don't serve any time" quid pro quo as many presidents have engaged in. Just wait: He'll issue a pardon (for the reasons described above) just before leaving office. The commutation was just to make sure that Libby didn't set foot in jail while he was waiting for the pardon.
That's an interesting thesis, except that Libby didn't cover for anyone. He just (if the jury was correct) panicked and got himself in trouble by making up stuff about where he first remembered hearing about Plame. (Or if the jury was wrong, he got himself in trouble by remembering incorrectly.) I think if Bush was going to pardon him he would have done it now. He generally does what he thinks is best, regardless of how the public is going to receive it, which is why people like me love him.
It's true the President has that kind of power, but isn't he supposed to at least try to seem impartial and not at all corrupt?
Are there any stipulations regarding the Presidential use of power at all?
I think this is exactly what this presidential power was designed for. This is an example of a prosecution that could never have happened outside an atmosphere of a political witch hunt with one political branch trying to cause damage to another in whatever way possible. The president gave the benefit of the doubt to the jury but got rid of the rediculously unproportional sentence. To me it's just a brief moment of sanity in Washington to enjoy before it's gone.
I remember when the CIA Leak first happened, Bush said (A) he had no idea who was reponsible and that (B) he would prosecute and punish to the full extent of the law anyone responsible.
I guess as far as (A) goes, there's a small chance he wasn't lying if he didn't ask Cheney (or Cheney lied to Bush) but (B) is just another promise that he's failed to keep.
How so? The prosecuter found crime connected with Armitage or anyone else passing that information.
How is informing the world that person X is an undercover operative for your government (and that their "employer" is a CIA front, also outing each and every operative utilizing that front) not close to a textbook definition of "giving Aid to the Enemy"?
Uh, you realize that Libby neither did any of those things, nor was he accused of any of those things, nor was he convicted of doing any of those things, right? The people who have been doing those things, and giving every possible aid and comfort to the enemy are principly the opponents of the war, including some former white house officials, such as the one who actually leaked the information. And of course the greatest aid and comfort is given to the enemy by the likes of Joe Wilson with his false public article about how he discovered that Iraq wasn't trying to by Uranium from Niger (when it turned out that it was), and half of the Congressional Democrats who slander the troops fighting the war and who regularly predict their ultimate failure.
hey, seems to me that since both the observers on earth and the space travelers are under 1g of accelerationg there will be no difference in the time dilation for either. Yes, there will be observed time dilation but in reality they will age at the same rate. (if the travelers return to earth after their trip, and they never exceded 1 g of acceleration, they will be the same age as those who stayed on earth) I'm not sure of the exact error that the author is making, mabey somebody else can take a look at it?
If you're thinking of the gravitational time dialation from General Relativity, I believe you're correct. In SR the earth observers and travellers have to be treated differently because one is in a fixed inertial frame and one is not, but if the problem is simplified to the case where travelers start with v=0.999999999c at T=0 and reach their destination without slowing down, then yes the time dialation effects are exactly the same. But that does NOT mean that they age at the "same rate," but that each percieves the other as aging much more slowly than themselves. That symetry ends when one of them leaves that inertial frame of reference and starts to slow down with relation to the other.
Trillions of kilometers? That's about 1/10th of a light year, you need at least 8 light years for interstellar travel (and we'd be pretty amazingly lucky to have intelligent life so close to us).
Try "gajillion bazillion manyillian kilometers". Interstellar space travel is pretty ridiculous, and not just because we can't think of a technology that could do it, but because a technology that could do it and not take millenniums would be impossible. Most of all why would they bother coming all this way? If they did want to travel so far just to say "hello, what's up?" why not do it via radio? This would be much faster and easier.
Actually travelling can be much faster than radio. Special relativity limits communication between fixed parties to the speed of light, because it limits observed travel to the speed of light. Contrary to popular opinion, it does not limit subject travel to any speed whatsoever. While the traveller will never "technically" see his destination approaching with a velocity faster than the speed of light, he will see the distance to is destination relativistically contracting as his speed increases.
Therefore, in a space craft that could accelerate and 1g for half the trip, then decelerate at 1 g for half the trip, Special Relativity predicts you would reach the center of the galaxy in 20 years, covering a distance of (from earth perspective) 30 thousand light years. From earth perspective, our max speed was 0.999999999 c and it took us hundreds of thousands of years to get there. Our perceived speed at any instant was never any faster, but because of the changing length contraction, at journey's end, our perceived distance travelled over time was 1500*c.
These are the lengths of time it would take to travel to the following places using the 1g acceleration/deceleration method. (From http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/S R/rocket.html) 4.3 ly nearest star ==> 3.6 years 27 ly Vega ==> 6.6 years 30,000 ly Center of our galaxy ==> 20 years 2,000,000 ly Andromeda galaxy ==> 28 years n ly ==> 1.94 arccosh (n/1.94 + 1) years
As an added bonus, if you made the trip to Andromeda, you'd get observe 2 million years of galaxy evolution over your 28 year trip.
Well, mutation is random. Survival of those mutations is not. But the idea that primate forms are "ideal" simply because we happened to be the result of evolution ignores that while we survived, the individual physical traits chosen from were random. There were probably far superior (but equally random) options that just never happened to pop up in the right place at the right time.
IMO, the evidence opposes the common assertion of "random mutation." Similar patterns have consistently independently arisen, yet these can not be the only patterns that are capable of surviving and reproducing.
So, there may be a lot of different intelligent animals with weird body plans, such as a radially-symmetrical jelly-fish like creature. But without the manipulative structures, such as hands, we wouldn't expect them to be building space ships, and winding up landing or crash-landing on other planets.
Or maybe that's why the crashed. "Turn the egg! Turn the egg!" "I can't, I don't have any hands!!!" "AHHHHHHHHH!!!!"
Lots of people put forward this ftl argument to say that it just wouldn't be possible to travel interstellar distances. However, we're only scratching the surface when it comes to solving the general relativity equation.
The assertion that the light-speed limit puts a limitation on interstellar travel is based upon a misunderstanding of Special Relativity. According to SR, light-speed determines an absolute minimum time of travel as seen by an earth-observer watching the trip, but places no such limit from the perspective of the traveller. On the contrary, if SR holds, then as the traveller increases speed, the distance to his destination contracts, which makes interstellar travel more feasible under SR than it is under newtonian physics. (Just don't expect to find anyone you knew when you come back to earth.) I believe there's a set of times worked out, given a constant 1g acceleration, for various destinations in the alt.physics FAQ.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush won in 2004 because the majority of the people who voted thought he would be a better president than Kerry.
(**yes, I know about the electoral college, but it USUALLY works out according to the majority, as it did in 2004)
The semantic squabling going on is over two definitions of "undercover". Plame did have an "unofficial cover," as do many in the CIA who aren't "secret agents" in the sense that one would normally thing of that term. Plame and CIA officials confirmed this to congress. That's one definition. The federal law which you mention uses a much different definition, which requires using the cover in operations abroad. By this definition she was NOT undercover, as several officials and experts also testified to congress. So the crime that you said indisputably took place, indisputably did not take place. Aside from her not qualifying for the definition given in the law, there are other requirements that were also not met.
All evidence? By open admission, the "crime" was committed by Armitage. The "presumptive motive" you speak of Democratic spin that is amazingly still repeated despite the truth being open record. The truth is that the information was used by Armitage to bolster Wilson's case against the justification for the war, just as Wilson had used it for the same purpose. These, and all other facts relating to the case were well known to the prosecutor very early on in the investigation.
Wow, that's more coke dealers than I would have guessed that Clinton was buddies with!
Good slogan. Of course, that means that the ammo box is fair game for resolving issues that the Supreme Court has co-opted, like abortion.
(4) The automatic modding of red team posts as "flamebait" and blue team posts as "insightful".
/.
Serves me right for clicking on a political story in
If you're REALLY not on any team, you might be interested to know that her name was dropped by Armitage in an effort to BOLSTER Wilson's case against the justification of the war.
I don't think he should disregard them at all. It's his job to serve them. That means doing what is in the public's best interest at all times. And that necessarily means sometimes doing things that are contrary to public opinion. (And at other times it inevitably means doing things opposed to especially loud minority opinions.) The fact that the Public Good does not always line up with the Public Opinion is one of the central motivating themes in the drafting of our Constitution, and why they came up with such a complex system instead of a simple direct democracy.
I agree on all counts. I think Bush's legacy will be 1) Iraq, which will (following the model of the South after the Civil War) take 100 years to look like an unqualified success, and 2) putting the U.S. country back on the path towards democracy by nominating S.C. Justices who limit themselves to their Constitutional role
The Mongols loved Genghis Khan for uniting the tribes, elevating the people, and ending the infighting among them. Much of the rest of Asia loved him for providing one of the most extensive centers of cultural and intellectual exchange in history.
I'm sure the Huns appreciated Attila's success in war, but I don't think anyone loved Stalin.
And hopefully no one loves the mini-Hitlers who go around modding conservative posts "flamebait".
Except that he didn't do any of those things. The most outlandish claim is the one regarding the Constitution, as this is the first president in recent history who truely respects it.
First, thanks for reminding me to contribute to the defense fund.
Second, presidents are SUPPOSED to be activist. That's the point. Legislators too. It's called republicanism. Also known as democracy. They derive their power from the people who elect them according to the constitution. That same constitution gives no political power to Judges, but requires that they simply settle cases according to the written law and the testified facts. When Judges usurp political power from the elected branches, they usurp it from the people. Which, for example, is why we needed a war to resolve the slavery issue, because the S.C. took it upon itself to decide it for the people, leaving the people no peaceful or democratic recourse for change. It's the same reason we'll need a war for the people to express their will on the abortion issue unless the S.C. reliquishes that to the rightful lawmakers as well.
You know, it's almost worth sending decent people to prison seeing how it makes liberals suddenly believe in the Constitution, Justice, and the Rule of Law. Too bad the phenomenon doesn't seem to have any effect on the S.C. Justices.
The Russians?
The punishment he thought was appropriate was the fine plus the 2 years probation. That's the punishment he left intact, and it sounds like the punishment that was recommended by probation office.
He did not set the vertict aside, or alter it in any way. Only the sentence was changed. The jury has no part in determining the sentence, only the vertict.
I agree, and it should be only the first of several counts of Treason against Joe Wilson. I volunteer to be on the firing squad.
That's an interesting thesis, except that Libby didn't cover for anyone. He just (if the jury was correct) panicked and got himself in trouble by making up stuff about where he first remembered hearing about Plame. (Or if the jury was wrong, he got himself in trouble by remembering incorrectly.) I think if Bush was going to pardon him he would have done it now. He generally does what he thinks is best, regardless of how the public is going to receive it, which is why people like me love him.
I think this is exactly what this presidential power was designed for. This is an example of a prosecution that could never have happened outside an atmosphere of a political witch hunt with one political branch trying to cause damage to another in whatever way possible. The president gave the benefit of the doubt to the jury but got rid of the rediculously unproportional sentence. To me it's just a brief moment of sanity in Washington to enjoy before it's gone.
How so? The prosecuter found crime connected with Armitage or anyone else passing that information.
Uh, you realize that Libby neither did any of those things, nor was he accused of any of those things, nor was he convicted of doing any of those things, right? The people who have been doing those things, and giving every possible aid and comfort to the enemy are principly the opponents of the war, including some former white house officials, such as the one who actually leaked the information. And of course the greatest aid and comfort is given to the enemy by the likes of Joe Wilson with his false public article about how he discovered that Iraq wasn't trying to by Uranium from Niger (when it turned out that it was), and half of the Congressional Democrats who slander the troops fighting the war and who regularly predict their ultimate failure.
If you're thinking of the gravitational time dialation from General Relativity, I believe you're correct. In SR the earth observers and travellers have to be treated differently because one is in a fixed inertial frame and one is not, but if the problem is simplified to the case where travelers start with v=0.999999999c at T=0 and reach their destination without slowing down, then yes the time dialation effects are exactly the same. But that does NOT mean that they age at the "same rate," but that each percieves the other as aging much more slowly than themselves. That symetry ends when one of them leaves that inertial frame of reference and starts to slow down with relation to the other.
Absolutely, it's still slower than radio from earth perspective. Only the actual travellers get the benefit.
Of course thats a tougher nut to crack. The article I linked goes on to estimate the minimum fuel mass required for the various trip lengths.
Actually travelling can be much faster than radio. Special relativity limits communication between fixed parties to the speed of light, because it limits observed travel to the speed of light. Contrary to popular opinion, it does not limit subject travel to any speed whatsoever. While the traveller will never "technically" see his destination approaching with a velocity faster than the speed of light, he will see the distance to is destination relativistically contracting as his speed increases.
Therefore, in a space craft that could accelerate and 1g for half the trip, then decelerate at 1 g for half the trip, Special Relativity predicts you would reach the center of the galaxy in 20 years, covering a distance of (from earth perspective) 30 thousand light years. From earth perspective, our max speed was 0.999999999 c and it took us hundreds of thousands of years to get there. Our perceived speed at any instant was never any faster, but because of the changing length contraction, at journey's end, our perceived distance travelled over time was 1500*c.
These are the lengths of time it would take to travel to the following places using the 1g acceleration/deceleration method. (From http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/
4.3 ly nearest star ==> 3.6 years
27 ly Vega ==> 6.6 years
30,000 ly Center of our galaxy ==> 20 years
2,000,000 ly Andromeda galaxy ==> 28 years
n ly ==> 1.94 arccosh (n/1.94 + 1) years
As an added bonus, if you made the trip to Andromeda, you'd get observe 2 million years of galaxy evolution over your 28 year trip.
IMO, the evidence opposes the common assertion of "random mutation." Similar patterns have consistently independently arisen, yet these can not be the only patterns that are capable of surviving and reproducing.
Or maybe that's why the crashed.
"Turn the egg! Turn the egg!"
"I can't, I don't have any hands!!!"
"AHHHHHHHHH!!!!"
The assertion that the light-speed limit puts a limitation on interstellar travel is based upon a misunderstanding of Special Relativity. According to SR, light-speed determines an absolute minimum time of travel as seen by an earth-observer watching the trip, but places no such limit from the perspective of the traveller. On the contrary, if SR holds, then as the traveller increases speed, the distance to his destination contracts, which makes interstellar travel more feasible under SR than it is under newtonian physics. (Just don't expect to find anyone you knew when you come back to earth.) I believe there's a set of times worked out, given a constant 1g acceleration, for various destinations in the alt.physics FAQ.